1. ' Through the instant petition the applicant/respondent/plaintiff seeks extension in time period which, was fixed by this Court vide judgment dated 6-3-2003 directing him to dispose of all the available stores of petroleum products, gasoline and diesel oil under the supervision of the concerned authorities within a period of one week and he shall not operate the petrol pump for the said purpose pending disposal of the suit.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicant/respondent/plaintiff contended that modification in the judgment can be made to the said extent under the inherent powers of this Court.
3. ' The learned A.A.-G., however, vehemently opposed the above contention and argued that such powers are not available to this Court.
4. ' No doubt the inherent powers of this Court under section 151, C.P.C. Are undefined one and this provision can be pressed into service for securing the ends of justice where there is no express provision to meet any eventuality, however, on the other hand in presence of express prohibition contained in any other provision of the Code such powers cannot be exercised.
5. ' For the amendment of judgment, decree or order there is an express provision which is section 152, C.P.C. But that confines the exercising of power to correct only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in such judgment, decree or order which have occurred due to accidental slip or omission, therefore, this provision cannot be stretched nor its scope can be widened to an extent' thereby defeating the manifest intent of the Legislature.
6. ' The prayer asked for through the instant application is of the nature which in substance is more than the permissible parameter envisaged by section 152, C.P.C. Because the applicant/respondent/ plaintiff seeks that time of one week given in the judgment be extended to one month period for the removal of all the petroleum products from the filling station/petrol pump.
7. ' The provision of section 151, C.P.C. Has been enacted by the Legislature conferring authority on the Court to meet any unforeseen eventuality and to do justice in a case where injustice or unbearable hardship would be caused if the remedy sought is not provided when there is no express provision available in the Code to remedy the wrong. The sense of the law on the point, therefore, is that the Court may adopt any procedure and may pass order to secure the ends of justice which procedure or step to be taken is neither prohibited expressly or impliedly by the different provisions of the Code. However, such prohibition on the principle of law cannot be presumed or inferred unless it can be comprehended by bare reading of any provision of law to that effect.
8. ' The object of the entire scheme of the Civil Procedure Code is not only to regulate the procedure of the Courts for trying any lis but the basic purpose is to streamline, channelize and ensure the doing of justice by the Courts of law in A laid down Manner, therefore, no procedural impediment shall thwart the doing of justice in a given case if the facts and circumstances so require.
9. ' The Apex Court while dealing with a similar proposition of law in the case of Imtiaz Ahmad v.
10. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382 has laid down the following principle of law which is a time tested one:- - "The proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and to thwart the grant to the people of their rights. All technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on ground of public policy... Any system which by giving effect to the form and not the substance defeats substantive rights and is defective to that extent."
11. ' While enunciating the above principle of law, their Lordships have drawn a very fine distinction between the technicalities simpliciter and those which are to be essentially complied with because of the command of law or on account of public policy.
12. ' It is a firm principle of law which is more than a century old one that once a Court/Judge signs and pronounces the judgment in open Court then it/he ceases to exercise jurisdiction in the same matter as he becomes functus officio. The firm and unequivocal insistence of law particularly Order 20, rule 5 and Order 41, rules 30 and 31 is with the object that while drawing judgment the Judge must apply his judicial mind with a reasonable depth so that the points in controversy are fairly determined with reasons therefor and the parties while leaving the Court carry an impression that justice has been done.
13. ' Any alteration and amendment thereafter in the judgment is, therefore, not permissible in law in a routine manner because such practice if allowed would bring the system of justice into disarray.
14. The law itself has provided exceptions to the above rule under the provisions of section 114 read with Order 47 and section 12, C.P.C. But that jurisdiction can only be exercised when the essential prerequisites contained therein are available in a given case.
15. ' Now in the instant case the relief sought is of a nature which is not covered by the provisions of section 152, C.P.C. Nor for exercising powers under section 114 and Order 47 of the ibid Code the essential prerequisites exist thus the judgment dated 6-3-2003 cannot be modified to the extent as prayed for. ##TE# ' During the course of hearing the parties themselves agreed that ten days additional time till 23rd March, 2003 is allowed to the applicant/respondent/plaintiff to enable him to dispose of or otherwise remove the entire available stock of petroleum products including gasoline and diesel oil under the supervision of concerned authorities.
16. ' For the above reasons, therefore, this application being misconceived one is dismissed.